The Effect of Using Literature Circle Activities on English-Speaking Skills and Critical Thinking Skills of EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the effect of using the literature circle activities on EFL learners' CEFR B2 English-speaking skills and development of critical thinking skills. The study design employed a single-group repeated-measure approach, which included three repeated experimental tests, as well as pretest and posttest data for both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The independent variable in this study was the literature circle activities based on Reader Response theory, while the dependent variables were the English-speaking skills and critical thinking ability of the participants. To assess the participants' English-speaking skills, descriptive statistics were employed, and the data were collected using CEFR B2 English-speaking skill tests. Critical thinking ability was evaluated through content analysis of the participants' responses. The research instruments utilized in this study included literature circle activities lesson plans, the CEFR B2 English-speaking skill test, the critical thinking skill test, and interviews conducted with the participants. A total of 9 upper secondary EFL students were selected for the study using purposive sampling and classified into three groups based on their English proficiency levels: low, medium, and high. The findings revealed that the students demonstrated improvement in their English-speaking abilities, reaching the CEFR B2 level as evidenced by the pretest and post-test results. Furthermore, their English-speaking skills exhibited progressive enhancement during the three-unit tests that followed their engagement in the literature circle activities. Moreover, the results from the critical thinking skill test indicated that the students had developed critical thinking skills after participating in the literature circle activities. Content analysis of their writing responses demonstrated a gradual increase in their ability to reason and think critically following their involvement in the literature circle activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".